I'm a middle American Anglo guy questioning everything I see and hear these days. I'm also a religious conservative with a strong taste for populist economics. When I look at the Democrats, both in the abstract and those I've known myself, I want to ask: why do you hate people like me so? Why would it be such a bad thing to make space for someone like me in your party? Why would you try and force me to bend the knee before Planned Parenthood? Why would you force me to compromise my conscience on what marriage is, and isn't? Why can't we disagree civilly, so that on the big picture items like trade, economics, foreign policy, domestic policy, there can be room for a populist Democrat of the old school, grounded in Christian faith (William Jennings Bryan? Al Smith? FDR?), to attempt to fight for what is right and just and best for the people of this country? Why has that become so verboten? Does the ordinary Democratic voter and low-level politician (I'm looking at you, Nick Hinrichsen of Pueblo, Colorado) realize how badly they are being played, and how they are made to compromise themselves and their beliefs, as well as their relations with friends, family, and neighbors, in the service of a political party and machine that demands compliance in almost Stalinesque terms?
This divide is really going to be the death knell of this country as a functioning, pluralistic, nation. We can't be this large, this diverse, this geographically vast, and be at the same time this polarized and easily separated and categorized by the holders of power, capital, and influence. Either the divides that force us into opposing camps are dissolved, so that there can be some real debate, agreement, and disagreement, or we go ahead and acquiesce to the installment of a permanent police state to hold the whole thing together. We need to choose, and I certainly don't choose and don't want the latter.
Hi Daniel, sorry for the slow reply. Thanks so much for sharing this. Honestly i'm not sure I have a great answer to your question of why Dems would want to force you to compromise my conscience on what marriage is or isn't. I guess part of it is that many Dems (but probably not most of them since POC members of the Democratic Party lean socially conservative) see these things as non-negotiables. They seem them as existential. But I think it's more than that; I think deep down many of them suspect that that if they made good faith concessions on these culture war issues, that Republicans wouldn't reciprocate. The fear of being magnanimous in victory is compounded by the fact that Dems don't consider themselves victorious but rather see themselves as under assault by a GOP that wants to take power at any cost.
That said, I don't think that these divides are likely to lead to a full break, since our institutions and relatively de-centralized system of government are pretty good at channeling and absorbing foundational disagreements without it spilling over into violence. If anything, political violence appears to be declining and is certainly lower than what it was in, say, the 1960s. That said, all of us have a role in making sure it stays that way, by doing whatever we can to lower the existential stakes of politics and to commit, both privately and publicly, to respecting democratic outcomes that we hate and that we feel present a threat to everything we hold dear. That's the test. So, for my part, when I think about the worst case scenario in 2024, it's Trump winning. But if he wins fair and square then I commit—because I have to, as a small-d democrat—to respect the outcome and accept it as legitimate.
Thank YOU, Shadi, for your reply, I sincerely appreciate it.
I get the political machinations regarding certain positions, but what about appealing to voters, or possible candidates? I'm a person who would frankly love to run for office and if I could as a Dan Lipinski, socially conservative Democrat, I would, because I think the Democrats have much more flexibility to get things done that I care about (economics, water supply, infrastructure, etc). But there are these absolutist litmus tests regarding social issues that have become non-negotiable and it drives people like me completely out of the process, because I see dead ends on both sides. If the GOP was smart, it would pivot hard on economics (because why not, the rich will always be rich, am I right?) towards a Bob LaFollette style, center-left populism while giving space for social conservatives to participate.
The Democrats would do well to abandon their commitment to Planned Parenthood and women's lib issues, because those are niche issues that satisfy very narrow interests in this country. We have other, much bigger, "fabric of society" type issues to address.
I'd also say that the GOP and its base feel exactly the same as Democrats. In a state like mine, Colorado, this feels very acute, because the rural, red parts of the state have a complete split between them and the blue cities. The cities are where all the power is, and those people there have lots of big ideas about say, the environment, but no idea about rural impacts, because they don't know anything about a rural way of life. This divide and perception cuts both ways. Something has got to bridge this, but I have no idea what it will take.
The impulse to demonize those who are not our ideological brethren may not be new, but the ferocity of the backlash seems new. Listening to our political opponents is not much in vogue. We'd rather shout over them. Call them names. Or shut them out altogether. Having spent decades squarely with the progressives, admitting my own (former) contempt for converatives hasn't been easy. Listening to those I disagreed with instead of shouting over them was the only way to develop empathy. Most of our faces are buried in our devices. We used to have platforms for healthy debate in schools and on TV. Learning to debate was considered essential education. Not anymore. We divide classrooms into oppressor and oppressed. The rules of debate have been tossed out as relics of the patriarchy. I am hoping this all this blows over, that we come to our senses, learn to empathize again with those we disagree with, become comfortable again with marriage, family, prayer and worship. When Americans and Europeans left the church, they did not do themselves any favors. The collective misery of disaffected hundreds of millions of self-loathing, childless-by-choice atheists is the primal scream heard round the Western world.
Donna, well said. On the positive side, though, I think that the atomized nature of social media engagement and the fact that it allows people to get angry in the world of "dreampolitik" rather than in real life should be of some reassurance. The question is whether that holds or whether "dreampolitik" starts to encroach on realpolitik.
Sadly, when mental illness meets "dreampolitik"--as it did yesterday when a woman who identified as a trans man murdered innocent children and adults at a Christian school in Nashville--the anger spills over into the real world with tragic results. I'll be interested to see how the pundits on the left and the right exploit this tragedy to fuel their agendas--anti-gun, anti-trans, anti-what have you. Will the right call this as a hate crime? Will the left blame guns or transphobia? Finally, will anyone allow that the single biggest factor in the vast majority of mass shootings is the mental illness of the shooter? This incident will be a real test for the left, who tend to validate 100% of trans-identifying persons as falling within the spectrum of "normal" psychopathology, notwithstanding considerable evidence to the contrary. We live in a world where medical and surgical interventions are the broadly accepted remedies of choice for those who identify as trans. Perhaps there will be some correction in this area and trans-identifying persons will undergo therapy (as was the custom in the past) before transitioning. Rates of desistance are extremely high among gender confused minors. So how did we arrive at this place where the only remedy for misaligned mind and body is to change the body? My prayers for the victims, including the family of the shooter, but maybe not for the shooter herself. It's worth noting that the MSM will struggle with the shooter's pronouns in their coverage.
Thanks Donna for sharing. I have to confess that I did not hear about this shooting at all. Since I'm on a news-free diet (except for "compelling" exceptions), a lot of these things I'm not even aware of. You may have seen it, but I wrote about the case for not knowing the news here: https://shadihamid.substack.com/p/im-better-off-not-knowing
I haven't watched cable news since mid 2017. Will have to check this out. When I visit my 99 year old mother, I tell her not to watch the news. I should be taking my own advice. This is something to put on my "not to-do" list!
I'm a middle American Anglo guy questioning everything I see and hear these days. I'm also a religious conservative with a strong taste for populist economics. When I look at the Democrats, both in the abstract and those I've known myself, I want to ask: why do you hate people like me so? Why would it be such a bad thing to make space for someone like me in your party? Why would you try and force me to bend the knee before Planned Parenthood? Why would you force me to compromise my conscience on what marriage is, and isn't? Why can't we disagree civilly, so that on the big picture items like trade, economics, foreign policy, domestic policy, there can be room for a populist Democrat of the old school, grounded in Christian faith (William Jennings Bryan? Al Smith? FDR?), to attempt to fight for what is right and just and best for the people of this country? Why has that become so verboten? Does the ordinary Democratic voter and low-level politician (I'm looking at you, Nick Hinrichsen of Pueblo, Colorado) realize how badly they are being played, and how they are made to compromise themselves and their beliefs, as well as their relations with friends, family, and neighbors, in the service of a political party and machine that demands compliance in almost Stalinesque terms?
This divide is really going to be the death knell of this country as a functioning, pluralistic, nation. We can't be this large, this diverse, this geographically vast, and be at the same time this polarized and easily separated and categorized by the holders of power, capital, and influence. Either the divides that force us into opposing camps are dissolved, so that there can be some real debate, agreement, and disagreement, or we go ahead and acquiesce to the installment of a permanent police state to hold the whole thing together. We need to choose, and I certainly don't choose and don't want the latter.
Hi Daniel, sorry for the slow reply. Thanks so much for sharing this. Honestly i'm not sure I have a great answer to your question of why Dems would want to force you to compromise my conscience on what marriage is or isn't. I guess part of it is that many Dems (but probably not most of them since POC members of the Democratic Party lean socially conservative) see these things as non-negotiables. They seem them as existential. But I think it's more than that; I think deep down many of them suspect that that if they made good faith concessions on these culture war issues, that Republicans wouldn't reciprocate. The fear of being magnanimous in victory is compounded by the fact that Dems don't consider themselves victorious but rather see themselves as under assault by a GOP that wants to take power at any cost.
That said, I don't think that these divides are likely to lead to a full break, since our institutions and relatively de-centralized system of government are pretty good at channeling and absorbing foundational disagreements without it spilling over into violence. If anything, political violence appears to be declining and is certainly lower than what it was in, say, the 1960s. That said, all of us have a role in making sure it stays that way, by doing whatever we can to lower the existential stakes of politics and to commit, both privately and publicly, to respecting democratic outcomes that we hate and that we feel present a threat to everything we hold dear. That's the test. So, for my part, when I think about the worst case scenario in 2024, it's Trump winning. But if he wins fair and square then I commit—because I have to, as a small-d democrat—to respect the outcome and accept it as legitimate.
Thank YOU, Shadi, for your reply, I sincerely appreciate it.
I get the political machinations regarding certain positions, but what about appealing to voters, or possible candidates? I'm a person who would frankly love to run for office and if I could as a Dan Lipinski, socially conservative Democrat, I would, because I think the Democrats have much more flexibility to get things done that I care about (economics, water supply, infrastructure, etc). But there are these absolutist litmus tests regarding social issues that have become non-negotiable and it drives people like me completely out of the process, because I see dead ends on both sides. If the GOP was smart, it would pivot hard on economics (because why not, the rich will always be rich, am I right?) towards a Bob LaFollette style, center-left populism while giving space for social conservatives to participate.
The Democrats would do well to abandon their commitment to Planned Parenthood and women's lib issues, because those are niche issues that satisfy very narrow interests in this country. We have other, much bigger, "fabric of society" type issues to address.
I'd also say that the GOP and its base feel exactly the same as Democrats. In a state like mine, Colorado, this feels very acute, because the rural, red parts of the state have a complete split between them and the blue cities. The cities are where all the power is, and those people there have lots of big ideas about say, the environment, but no idea about rural impacts, because they don't know anything about a rural way of life. This divide and perception cuts both ways. Something has got to bridge this, but I have no idea what it will take.
The impulse to demonize those who are not our ideological brethren may not be new, but the ferocity of the backlash seems new. Listening to our political opponents is not much in vogue. We'd rather shout over them. Call them names. Or shut them out altogether. Having spent decades squarely with the progressives, admitting my own (former) contempt for converatives hasn't been easy. Listening to those I disagreed with instead of shouting over them was the only way to develop empathy. Most of our faces are buried in our devices. We used to have platforms for healthy debate in schools and on TV. Learning to debate was considered essential education. Not anymore. We divide classrooms into oppressor and oppressed. The rules of debate have been tossed out as relics of the patriarchy. I am hoping this all this blows over, that we come to our senses, learn to empathize again with those we disagree with, become comfortable again with marriage, family, prayer and worship. When Americans and Europeans left the church, they did not do themselves any favors. The collective misery of disaffected hundreds of millions of self-loathing, childless-by-choice atheists is the primal scream heard round the Western world.
Donna, well said. On the positive side, though, I think that the atomized nature of social media engagement and the fact that it allows people to get angry in the world of "dreampolitik" rather than in real life should be of some reassurance. The question is whether that holds or whether "dreampolitik" starts to encroach on realpolitik.
Sadly, when mental illness meets "dreampolitik"--as it did yesterday when a woman who identified as a trans man murdered innocent children and adults at a Christian school in Nashville--the anger spills over into the real world with tragic results. I'll be interested to see how the pundits on the left and the right exploit this tragedy to fuel their agendas--anti-gun, anti-trans, anti-what have you. Will the right call this as a hate crime? Will the left blame guns or transphobia? Finally, will anyone allow that the single biggest factor in the vast majority of mass shootings is the mental illness of the shooter? This incident will be a real test for the left, who tend to validate 100% of trans-identifying persons as falling within the spectrum of "normal" psychopathology, notwithstanding considerable evidence to the contrary. We live in a world where medical and surgical interventions are the broadly accepted remedies of choice for those who identify as trans. Perhaps there will be some correction in this area and trans-identifying persons will undergo therapy (as was the custom in the past) before transitioning. Rates of desistance are extremely high among gender confused minors. So how did we arrive at this place where the only remedy for misaligned mind and body is to change the body? My prayers for the victims, including the family of the shooter, but maybe not for the shooter herself. It's worth noting that the MSM will struggle with the shooter's pronouns in their coverage.
Thanks Donna for sharing. I have to confess that I did not hear about this shooting at all. Since I'm on a news-free diet (except for "compelling" exceptions), a lot of these things I'm not even aware of. You may have seen it, but I wrote about the case for not knowing the news here: https://shadihamid.substack.com/p/im-better-off-not-knowing
I haven't watched cable news since mid 2017. Will have to check this out. When I visit my 99 year old mother, I tell her not to watch the news. I should be taking my own advice. This is something to put on my "not to-do" list!
go birds